Cite as 24 A.D. 1061 as a livestock dealer under the Act. The complaint charges that respondent violated certain provisions of the Act and the regulations issued thereunder. On June 24, 1965, respondent filed an answer in which he admits the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations set forth in the complaint, waives oral hearing and the Examiner's Report, and consents to the issuance of a specified order containing findings of fact and conclusions based upon the allegations set forth in the complaint. Complainant has recommended that the order consented to by respondent be issued. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Olney Livestock Auction, Olney, Texas, the Seymour Stockyards Co., Seymour, Texas, the Graham Livestock Commission Company, Graham, Texas, the Floydada Livestock Sales Company, Floydada, Texas and the Haskell Auction Company, Haskell, Texas, hereinafter referred to as the stockyards, are now, and were at all times mentioned herein, posted stockyards subject to the provisions of the Act. 2. Respondent, whose address is Route 1, Box 125A, Weatherford, Texas, is now, and was at all times hereinafter referred to, registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as a dealer to buy and sell livestock in commerce for his own account. 3. Respondent, in commerce, during the period March 16, 1965, through April 17, 1965, regularly and consistently engaged in dealer operations by buying and selling livestock for his own account at the stockyards, notwithstanding that his bond to secure the performance of his obligations arising out of said dealer operations was terminated on July 30, 1964, and he failed to provide and maintain a new and reasonable bond or its equivalent, as required by the Act and the regulations. 4. Respondent, at the Olney Livestock Auction, on or about April 6, 1965, purchased livestock for a total price of $227.58 and, in connection with said purchase, gave the Olney Livestock Auction a check in purported payment for such livestock in said amount of $227.58, check no. 356, dated April 6, 1965, drawn on respondent's account in the First National Bank, Weatherford, Texas, but said check was returned unpaid because of insufficient funds in respondent's account. Cite as 24 A.D. 1063 CONCLUSIONS By reason of the facts set forth in Findings of Fact 3 and 4 hereof, it is concluded that respondent has wilfully violated section 312(a) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 213 (a)) and sections 201.29, 201.30 and 201.43 (b) of the regulations (9 CFR 201.29, 201.30, and 201.43 (b)). Respondent has consented to the issuance of the order set forth below and complainant has recommended that such order be issued. The order will be issued. ORDER Respondent shall cease and desist from (1) engaging in business, in commerce, in any capacity for which bonding is required under the Act and the regulations, without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as required by the Act and the regulations; (2) failing to pay, when due, the full purchase price of livestock purchased in commerce; and (3) issuing checks in payment for livestock purchased in commerce without having and maintaining sufficient funds on deposit in the bank upon which they are drawn to pay such checks. Respondent is suspended as a registrant under the Act until such time as he complies fully with the bonding requirements of the Act and the regulations. When respondent has fully complied with the Act and the regulations, a supplemental order will be issued in this proceeding terminating this suspension. This order shall become effective on the sixth day after service upon respondent and copies hereof shall be served upon the parties. (No. 10,037) In re LIVESTOCK, INC. P&S Docket No. 3485. Decided August 16, 1965. Failure to pay when due-Insolvency-Suspension of registration-Default Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from failing to pay when due for livestock purchased and is suspended as a registrant for a period of 30 days and thereafter until no longer insolvent. Mr. Garrett N. Wyss for complainant. Mr. Jack W. Bain, Hearing Examiner. Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer Cite as 24 A.D. 1063 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), instituted by a complaint filed March 19, 1965 by the Acting Director, Packers and Stockyards Division, Consumer and Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Respondent is registered with the Secretary under the act as a dealer buying and selling livestock in commerce for its own account and is charged with failing to meet the financial requirements of the act and failing to pay, when due, the purchase price of livestock purchased in commerce. A copy of the complaint and a copy of the rules of practice were served upon respondent April 14, 1965. At the time of service of the complaint, respondent was notified in writing that an answer thereto should be filed within 20 days after such service and that, in accordance with section 202.9 of the rules of practice (9 CFR 202.9), failure to file an answer would constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint and, in effect, a waiver of oral hearings. Notwithstanding such notice, respondent has not filed an answer. The matter was referred to Jack W. Bain, Hearing Examiner, Office of Hearing Examiners, United States Department of Agriculture, for the preparation of a report without further investigation or hearing pursuant to section 202.9 (c) of the rules of practice. On July 8, 1965, the hearing examiner filed a report recommending that respondent be found to have violated the act as charged, be ordered to cease and desist from such violation and be suspended as a registrant under the act for a period of 30 days and thereafter until respondent demonstrates that it meets the financial requirements of the act. No exceptions to the hearing examiner's report were filed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent, Livestock, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the law of the State of Virginia whose address is 3831 Custis Road, Richmond, Virginia. Respondent is registered with the Secretary under the act as a dealer buying and selling livestock in commerce for its own account and at all times mentioned herein was so registered. 2. The Southside Stock Yards, Inc., stockyard, Petersburg, Virginia, and Richmond Union Stock Yards, Richmond, Virginia, Cite as 24 A.D. 1063 are now and were at all times material herein posted stockyards subject to the provisions of the act. 3. Respondent's current liabilities exceed its current assets. As of October 26, 1964, respondent's current liabilities exceeded its current assets by approximately $10,000. 4. During the period September 29 through October 12, 1964, respondent, in 12 separate transactions, purchased a total of 107 head of livestock at the stockyards and failed to pay, when due, the purchase prices of such livestock. CONCLUSIONS By reason of the facts set forth in Finding of Fact 3, respondent is insolvent within the meaning of the Act of Congress approved July 12, 1943 (7 U.S.C. 204). See e.g., In re Southern Buyers, Inc., 14 A.D. 811 (1955); In re Kenneth P. Williams, 21 A.D. 1429 (1962). In addition, respondent willfully violated section 312 (a) of the act (7 U.S.C. 213 (a)) and section 201.43 (b) of the regulations issued thereunder (9 CFR 201.43 (b)) by reason of the facts set forth in Finding of Fact 4. See, e.g., In re Dean Spencer, 22 A.D. 1151 (1963); In re Carey Bunn, 22 A.D. 1069 (1963). Respondent should be ordered to cease and desist from the violation of section 312 (a) of the act found herein and be suspended as a registrant under the act for a period of 30 days and thereafter until respondent is no longer insolvent, as recommended by complainant. ORDER Respondent shall cease and desist from failing to pay, when due, the purchase price of livestock purchased in commerce. Respondent is suspended as a registrant under the act for a period of 30 days and thereafter until it demonstrates that it is no longer insolvent. When respondent has demonstrated that it is no longer insolvent, a supplemental order will be issued in this proceeding terminating this suspension after the 30-day period. This order shall become effective on the 10th day after service thereof upon respondent and copies hereof shall be served upon the parties. Cite as 24 A.D. 1066 (No. 10,038) In re DONAL R. WHITE. P&S Docket No. 3493. Decided August 16, 1965. Bonding requirements-Suspension of registration-Default Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from engaging in business under the act without being bonded and is suspended as a registrant until he complies fully with the bonding requirements. Mr. Samuel J. Harris for complainant. Mr. Will Rogers, Hearing Examiner. Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer DECISION AND ORDER The recommended decision and order of the hearing examiner filed July 13, 1965, to which respondent did not file exceptions, are adopted as the final decision and order in this proceeding. This order shall become effective on the 10th day after service thereof upon respondent and copies hereof shall be served upon the parties. HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), instituted by a complaint filed March 26, 1964, by the Acting Director, Packers and Stockyards Division, Consumer and Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Respondent, Donal R. White, an individual, whose address is Randolph, Vermont, is registered with the Secretary of Agriculture under the act as a dealer buying and selling livestock in commerce for his own account and is charged with engaging in business as a dealer in commerce without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent to cover such dealer activities, as required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder. A copy of the complaint and a copy of the rules of practice were served upon the respondent March 31, 1965. At the time of service of the complaint, respondent was notified in writing that an answer thereto should be filed within 20 days after such service and that, in accordance with section 202.9 of |